Chemtrail over Melbourne Australia 21/12/2012 11 am

I don't know know why you think I am saying you are stupid. Are the guys in the photo stupid? Of course I've seen trails passing above or below other
trails or clouds. But that's not the point. How high is the fricking cloud you are comparing to? How could you possibly know by looking at it?

Those idiots in the observer corps eh, measuring the altitudes of German bombers when they could have just looked at whether they were above or below
clouds. Now that would be stupid.

I don't know know why you think I am saying you are stupid. Are the guys in the photo stupid? Of course I've seen trails passing above or below
other trails or clouds. But that's not the point. How high is the fricking cloud you are comparing to? How could you possibly know by looking at it?

Because I paid attention at school and I know what types of clouds form at which altitudes. So if you agree we can see that the trail goes in front of
this cloud but behind that one, and we know the types of clouds we are looking at, and therefore the heights they form at, we can estimate a height
quite accurately.

How can you tell that something that is white is in font or behind something that is white?

Binocular vision is effective to about 20 feet IIRC - beyond that you are guessing.

People who do this for a living do note make claims like yours - the look at things such as shadows to get a triangulation -
such as here

Your confidence in your eyesight is, sadly, typical of the whole chemtrail hoax - with people desperately looking for something with which to
contradict actual science, and resorting to "I saw it so it is true".

How can you tell that something that is white is in font or behind something that is white?

I think I will stop at this point as you have departed into the realms of non-sense. When did you ever see a cloud that was just white? No shade, no
shadow, no texture? That was a ridiculous thing to have said! Go outside and look at a cloud!

You said yourself "Of course I've seen trails passing above or below other trails or clouds."
Then "How can you tell that something that is white is in font or behind something that is white? "
You can't have it both ways.

When you are willing to discuss it properly and not just make up whatever negative you can think of I will reply to your points again. Until then,
have fun, keep an eye on the sky

I have footage of two planes approaching in from one direction, circle twice while spraying and leave the way they came once out of chemical spray.
TWO WEEKS OF SICKNESS since then.

The bad guys in the US are not just spraying the landmass, they are also occasionally spraying perfect back-n-forth grids over the Atlantic ocean (off
Florida) as shown by satellite weather radar. I'm guessing that the contamination of our ecosystem (and our bodies) is just an inconvenient side
effect. This has to be for weather modification or some other military "toy".

I'm guessing the mental midgets running these programs think they (and their families) are going to be immune to the physical damage they are
causing.

No, that was me. I could tell because the trails below the clouds had a definite continuous pattern and cast a shadow on the clouds above (it was
morning and the sun was low).

Regarding your previous reply to me, is it that easy to tell a cumulous from an alto cumulous or a Cirro cumulous in isolation? I'm not so sure it is,
but am open to a demonstration. Also your graphic does not cover all types, eg;

You said yourself "Of course I've seen trails passing above or below other trails or clouds."
Then "How can you tell that something that is white is in font or behind something that is white? "
You can't have it both ways.

I don't - however in some cases the trails or the clouds produce shadows - and that makes it a lot easier to figure out which is higher.

It doesn't tell you the actual height of course.

But there are not many such shadows in your video - none in fact.

Here's another link about conrail shadows - since you obviously don't bother
to read links or try to understand the physics of the atmosphere I include it for people who are interested in the atmosphere and how it works, and
not for those scared of fairy tales.

When you are willing to discuss it properly and not just make up whatever negative you can think of I will reply to your points again. Until
then, have fun, keep an eye on the sky

That is laughable - I have presented links and evidence - you don't even know what is in your own OP, and you say I am the one making things
up"??

You have not presented a single piece of credible evidence - the reason chemtrails are laughed at is people like you - who say they exist, put forth
totally debunkable evidence, and then complain that it gets debunks.

Your lack of evidence is your own fault - and something you can easily fix - all you have to do is choose to fix it.

Never mind.
I am not complaining about anything.
Like I said (you seem very good at ignoring things too ya know!) My fault for not filming it sooner. I will next time. Then you will see what I saw.
Until then you don't believe what I am saying. That is totally fair enough - No worries mate! I have no complaint - that is your prerogative.
So say that - "I don't believe you." That does not bother me

It is your extreme arrogance that bothers me. Do not ever try to tell me that I don't know what I saw, or that I don't understand what I saw, or
than I am not able to judge this that or the other. You do not know what I saw (Yes, my fault I admit) so do not presume to know more abut it than I
do! Don't insult my intelligence with stupid comments about white on white! Don't insult my intelligence with pictures of spotters from WWII - You
think I am ignorant of these technologies?
It is OK for us not to agree, it is even GOOD for us to debate. But I can guarantee you are not more intelligent than I am. Please do not try to
educate me.
Next time I will make sure I get more and better video.

It is your extreme arrogance that bothers me. Do not ever try to tell me that I don't know what I saw, or that I don't understand what I saw, or
than I am not able to judge this that or the other.

IF you believe that what you see are "chemtrails", you do not know what you saw, you did not understand what you saw, and you are not able to judge
by eyesight anything related to what you are talking about.

Sorry, this is a fact. This is something quite empirical.....measurements have been taken, tests run, laws of science followed.....there is no fact
in the "chemtrail" theory. If you disagree, please find and produce all the references you use to come to that conclusion. We will be waiting.

Originally posted by nothingwrong
..Do not ever try to tell me that I don't know what I saw, or that I don't understand what I saw, or than I am not able to judge this that or the
other...

I'm not quite sure how you can tell that something that looks like a contrail is really a chemtrail just by looking at it, considering that every
visual description I've heard for "chemtrails" sounds like the visual description of contrails.

I mean, if contrails and chemtrails look alike, how can you tell the difference without actually sampling and analyzing the trail itself?

edit on 1/6/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: speellling, and. grammar

Just wanted to say thank you to all the clever people on this thread. And remind you that (My fault I know) you didn't see what I saw. I will remedy
that error next time anything like this happens (And it will, it happens often)

I will bring you better evidence.

Remember. Even if you have no faith in the theory, it is not a reasonable argument to just say "Well you don't know what you saw"

Because YOU don't know what I saw either. You think you know what I didn't see. Now that is even more nebulous than the clouds we have been arguing
about!

I do love you all and your crazy conspiracy theories (Or crazy belief in the government) but lets try not to insult each other by questioning our very
ability to perceive everyday scenes, like a cloud scape.

it and the one below are 2 I sourced from a google search for "contrail and cloud" - feel free to look up the original at that search - unfortunately
ATS doesn't want me to create a link to it

The bottom pick it is very obvious to me that the trail going vertically is higher (Or behind) the trail going horizontally. Easy to see.
No?

I can see elements of the "Vertical" trail apparently "in front" of the "horizontal one" without any bother at all.

How about this one, the provenance of which I know because I took the photo - I can tell you that the fluffy white cloud is definitely lower than the
wispy ones in the background (because I was driving south and saw all of them from various angles - but which of those 2 wispy ones is higher or
lower? Which is a contrail and which was a cirrus cloud bank that had been building that afternoon?

The photo was taken on the "Desert Road" in New Zealand, north of Waiouru in the middle of the North Island, in December of 2010, facing roughly
south-south-east.

I have made my point. Trying to find a more difficult picture to decipher makes you look desperate.

The answer is simple - just list the cloud types in order of height. You may have confusion between the Cirrus and the Altostratus as they have a
cross over in their heights at about 18,000 to 20,000 ft.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.